Yeah, I saw people proposing that sort of thing, but I find the whole idea alien. The structure of combat mechanics makes a fair amount of sense to me as a stylization of the process of combat; but I find it hard to imagine why anyone would think that the process of social interaction and persuasion could be stylized in the same way.

I have a lot of sympathy for this view - stylizing some social interactions as tactical minigames can feel oddly abstract. (I should also reiterate how much I enjoy GURPS Social Engineering for other reasons.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AchyuthC

Yep, I agree with you Joe! Combat is awesome and exciting of course, but I love the idea of exploring other areas of the game to see what can be made mechanically interesting about those as well.

You say this better than I did. I would put it like this: collective storytelling is great fun, but can also be hard work to sustain all the time. Having good rules for tactical combat - which we really do in GURPS - is great in part because it offers you a time in which the game mechanics do a lot of the work of storytelling for you: they automatically create little micro-situations in which the players have to make meaningful choices, there is a lot of dice rolling and thus the chance of surprising and unexpected things happening; the stakes are usually quite high - and so on. Thus combat really works well in a roleplaying setting, and most campaigns see a lot of it.

I'd love to have some GURPS mechanics that would do the same thing for social interactions - that way, I could run a campaign that emphasized social stuff rather than fighting, but was still tactically dense, with the game mechanics doing a lot of the storytelling work for us, as above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I think a social conflict minigame that doesn't resemble combat mechanics might be as or more satisfying. But combat engines come easily to the RPG designer's hand, so...

I think this is probably right. The idea of doing "rolling to hit", doing "damage" etc seems odd in this context. Some of the systems I've sen have used metaphors of positioning rather than destruction, but none have really cracked it, in my view. Fun challenge, though.

I'd love to have some GURPS mechanics that would do the same thing for social interactions - that way, I could run a campaign that emphasized social stuff rather than fighting, but was still tactically dense, with the game mechanics doing a lot of the storytelling work for us, as above.

Oh that is the first time I actually was convinced social combat might be a good idea!
right now it involves a lot of creativity on both the GM and players side or routine dice rolling.
I can see an article where you add a table of random modifiers for things that are come up with and possibly skill modifiers that can be used like in the Technique article.

The Quick Contest mechanic is a good fast option but I like more detailed ones to be available. We have that for combat and Technical Grappling gave them to us for Grappling, something for Social situations would be cool.

I think this is probably right. The idea of doing "rolling to hit", doing "damage" etc seems odd in this context. Some of the systems I've sen have used metaphors of positioning rather than destruction, but none have really cracked it, in my view. Fun challenge, though.

If you are looking for a combat mechanic analog for arguments that still unifies with existing rules you may want to consider the technical grappling rules.

Additionally, I'd want there to be a heavy skill influence for factual arguments.

e.g. I wouldn't want to argue about physiology with the chair of the medical school's anatomy department regardless of how skilled I were in rhetoric.

__________________BenundefinedLife has a funny way of making sure you decide to leave the party just a few minutes too late to avoid trouble.

That's a great starting place, thank you! It would be really interesting if some advantages gave a bonus to certain methods of oratory like you mentioned. Switching between swing/thrust damage might get me that rock-paper-scissor style I want. I think I'm going to also have to list the set of skills and maneuvers you can use for a duel of wits, and which can be used for which.

I'll see what I can cook up with that as a base, thanks guys.

You're welcome. Glad to be of service. I use similar methods for tweaking Derived Stats on BESM 3. Plus I'm always looking for off the wall ways to do things.

You could also base your "Argument" damage thresholds off the FP loss table.

In general - I don't like Burning Wheel (I'm not bashing, it's just preference), but I did like this. I think you could (as Refplace suggested) create some rules for rhetoric using TG, but modified. If there is enough interest for such thing, I might create it and put it on my blog. Let's say at least five "me too!" posts and I'll do it - if it's interesting to y'all that is. More will get it up sooner. :-)

If you are looking for a combat mechanic analog for arguments that still unifies with existing rules you may want to consider the technical grappling rules.

Great idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

I think you could (as Refplace suggested) create some rules for rhetoric using TG, but modified. If there is enough interest for such thing, I might create it and put it on my blog. Let's say at least five "me too!" posts and I'll do it - if it's interesting to y'all that is. More will get it up sooner. :-)

In general - I don't like Burning Wheel (I'm not bashing, it's just preference), but I did like this. I think you could (as Refplace suggested) create some rules for rhetoric using TG, but modified. If there is enough interest for such thing, I might create it and put it on my blog. Let's say at least five "me too!" posts and I'll do it - if it's interesting to y'all that is. More will get it up sooner. :-)

I suggested it to Doug during the playtest, actually an entire option for any QC but I don't think anyone has gotten around to it.

Modifying TG for this purpose - indeed, examining the Quick Contest mechanic in general - has been on my "write about this" list for a while. As you can see by my blog post frequency recently, I'm finally getting back into a proper creative groove.

In general - I don't like Burning Wheel (I'm not bashing, it's just preference), but I did like this. I think you could (as Refplace suggested) create some rules for rhetoric using TG, but modified. If there is enough interest for such thing, I might create it and put it on my blog. Let's say at least five "me too!" posts and I'll do it - if it's interesting to y'all that is. More will get it up sooner. :-)

The tricky part of this is that for wrestling, you have a specific number of places on the human body that can be grabbed and held usefully, and you have certain places where you can inflict damage over and above restraint—pain, wrenching joints, breaking bones, strangling, gouging out eyes, and so on. But with argument, each argument has different strengths and vulnerabilities that arise partly from the issue, partly from the sentiments of the audience, and partly from the character of the speaker—the classic logos, pathos, and ethos of rhetoric. And you need some way to identify what those are, and then you need to come up with ways to exploit them, which will be culturally specific. For example, in the United States in 2015, accusing your opponent of being intolerant of homosexuality is a way to gain an edge in many political and cultural debates; but in the Victorian era, accusing your opponent of being intolerant of homosexuality would have painted him as a man of proper moral feelings and you as a dangerous apologist for unnatural vice. Wrestling is fairly independent of cultural context, but that's rarely true of debate.

__________________
Bill Stoddard

A human being should know how to live fast, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse. Specialization is for insects.

The tricky part of this is that for wrestling, you have a specific number of places on the human body that can be grabbed and held usefully, and you have certain places where you can inflict damage over and above restraint—pain, wrenching joints, breaking bones, strangling, gouging out eyes, and so on. But with argument, each argument has different strengths and vulnerabilities that arise partly from the issue, partly from the sentiments of the audience, and partly from the character of the speaker—the classic logos, pathos, and ethos of rhetoric. And you need some way to identify what those are, and then you need to come up with ways to exploit them, which will be culturally specific. For example, in the United States in 2015, accusing your opponent of being intolerant of homosexuality is a way to gain an edge in many political and cultural debates; but in the Victorian era, accusing your opponent of being intolerant of homosexuality would have painted him as a man of proper moral feelings and you as a dangerous apologist for unnatural vice. Wrestling is fairly independent of cultural context, but that's rarely true of debate.

That's over-broad. In collegiate wrestling, the goal is to put your foe's back to the mat, and so such wrestlers will do almost anything to avoid such. Including what's called "giving the foe your back," which is to basically turn face-down and "turtle up." In this sport, that's more-or-less fine (though disadvantaged) because the obvious move - a choke hold - is not allowed. In submission wrestling, going to your back is considered a neutral-to-good thing, depending on your style.

That's the analog of Cultural Familiarity here, and it's basically the rules of the game. In your own example, stating a position on homosexuality depends on the rules of the game.

There's definitely a blog post or three in this, but the one that springs to mind is very much "let's walk through the possible mechanics that already exist in GURPS, and figure out how to use each one."

Doing it as attack/defense/damage is one way. Regular and Quick Contests another. Reaction rolls a fourth (and likely the strongest given the outcomes desired).